bewilderment[edit]

What's always bewildered me about the class-analysis origins of the Samaritans is the way in which the returnees are supposed to have out-reproduced those who stayed. If the majority stayed (which everyone seems to believe) why did they not remain the majority, at least locally. The Diaspora may have outnumbered the Jews in Palestine, but I've never read any statement that there were ever a large number of Samaritans. Is this a figment of some 19th century reconstruction? Is there any archaeological work on Samaritan origins? --MichaelTinkler

A "majority" does not necessarily dictate what the dominant language or culture would be. The Latins, in all likelihood, NEVER outnumbered the Gauls or Iberians, but the obvious social advantages of learning Latin and adopting Roman culture meant that Latin language and culture would displace Iberian and Gaulish, for example. The returned exiles did not "out-reproduce" the non-exiles. They blended with them and this was whitewashed over by the powers that be in post-exile Judaism.

I have read somewhere now a completely different theory of their origin. According to this theory they predate the exile; some of the Jews decided to move the main centre of worship from [somewhere, can't remember name], those who moved with it became the Jews, those who rejected the move became the Samaritians. -- SJK

Somewher I have read that there still exist a samaritan community in israle, is it true?

i've heard that there is a community of samaritans around mount gerizim. Gringo300 05:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article really does not share much light at all on their religion. I learned much more about their scriptures, beliefs, rites, etc., from the Samaritan page proper, information I would expect more of in this article, not less. The last paragraph of Samaritanism in particular seems more like a defense of Biblical literalism , rather than laying out the facts of what they actually believe and how they conduct their religion. For example, the last paragraph says things like "This theory is problematic because..." and "The biblical story actually seems more probable, because..." in regards to the origin of the Samaritan people, when this is article is about their religion, not their origin. This article, that last paragraph especially, seems less like an encyclopedia and more like a forum. It should either be re-written or deleted. 70.153.99.149 13:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"...the people remaining in Israel would vastly outnumber those who returned, and there are no indications of this in either the Bible or in secular history". Is this really saying that the Babylonians took away so many people and killed so many others that centuries later the land had still not been repopulated (even by Babylonians!)? The Bible might not contradict this theory but common sense indicates that something is fundamentally wrong with it! 195.153.45.54 13:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

duplication[edit]

It looks like a lot of information is duplicated between Samaritans and Samaritanism. Also, there is more information about Samaritanism as a religion in the Samaritans article. These need to either be redistributed, or perhaps better integrated into one article with the other redirected to it. Any thoughts? Any objections? Wesley

Not everything is an -ism. There is nothing spun off here that is not at Samaritans. The link should go there, where the fuller discussion is. Wetman 03:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Samaritans and the Kingdom of Israel[edit]

Would not the Samaritans have had some relation to those exiled from the northern Kingdom, rather than the southern Kingdom? After all, they ended up largely living in the former territory of the northern Kingdom, and their name derives from the capital of the northern kingdom. But, in fact, the article does not even mention the northern Kingdom, nor does it mention the Assyrians. The purported northern kingdom origins of the Samaritans are mentioned in the Samaritan article. john k 22:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Is anyone opposed at this point to merging this material with Samaritan? --Briangotts | (Talk) 20:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No oppostion to merger.--Tomtom9041 00:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger. Goodness gracious, a fair amount of the samaritan article should be moved here, and probably more branches split off as well. Hasn't anybody else read Wikipedia:summary style?

--William Allen Simpson 04:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. See my comments above in "bewilderment." 70.153.99.149 13:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i oppose

I support. From a reading of the two articles, it doesn't seem that it makes any sense to cover the ethnic group separately from the religious group. As far as I can tell, they are the same. OneVeryBadMan 02:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. One describes an ethnic group, the other a religious movement. Clearly a hyperlink will suffice. The religious movement is categorized under Abrahamic religions. The ethnic groups obviously isn't. Combining them only confuses an otherwise clear distinction. The Editrix 18:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You presuppose that the religious group is distinct from the ethnic group, which it is clearly not. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the consensus seems to have been mostly no consensus, maybe leaning don't merge, I'm going to be bold and removed the ((merge)) tag from the article. -- MarcoTolo 01:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samaritanism[edit]

I'm under the impression that Samaritanism teaches Unitarian Monotheism (just like Judaism does), but I haven't been able to find anything on the internet so far that explicitly states this. Gringo300 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

i would think that the the following line implies that monotheism > paganism. That doesnt seem to be NPOV.

no significant changes to their religion other than the fact that the Exile cured Israel from its then recurrent bouts of paganism


It isn't NPOV, it is simply stating a fact of history. NPOV would be something like "its recurrent daliance with the devil and fall from God-given grace by embracing pagainsim" or some sort of value judgment about these occasional returns to pagan religiosity. 2601:600:967F:A0A0:114F:F914:E86C:D132 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but also rectify[edit]

"Samaritan" and "Samaritanism" should indeed probably be merged; neither article is sufficient, in any case. Some more detail, or at least, lots of links to relevant information on the biblical scholarship and middle-eastern archæology is needed. Citations. Stuff like that. I too think the neutrality is compromised in a couple places. I am not overly concernd with the suggestion above; the Chosen People seem to have progressed from a sort of wierd henology, through an official (but frequently breached) monolatry (consider all those furriner-wifes of Solomon and their religious accommodation...), to a rather rigid, insular monotheism, with sufficient contradictions that even Maimonides was probably perplexed at times. --djenner 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Isarlaism"[edit]

There is no such thing as "Old Isarlaism". It's a figment of the imagination, made up to provide the modern sect of Isarlaism with an ancient history. Paragraph on "Old Isarlaism" removed. GdB 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The foregoing claim is based upon one individual's opinion, which is not supported by any historical or Biblical information. The fact of the matter is this: Israel and Judah were divided into two separate entities, each retained a form of Yahwism. This is evidenced in Scripture. Obviously the Yahwistic religion of the northern kingdom would not be called Judaism, hence the existence of Old Isarlaism. Either disprove this using historical or Biblical evidence, or accept the fact that Old Isarlaism did exist. 9 May 2007

The burden of proof is, of course, on the person who claims that there ever was such a religion as "Isarlaism" -- not on the person who denies this. Please provide us with even one scholarly mention of Isarlaism -- you can't, because there is no such mention to be found in scholarly literature. There is reason to believe that there was a polytheistic, later henotheistic, belief in Canaan in which Yahweh played a major role -- a precursor of Judaism which is sometimes referred to (as you do) as Yahwism. However, hardly a thing is known about this religion or complex of religions. There is no evidence which allows us to distinguish between different branches of Yahwism -- the fact that Israel and Judah were separate kingdoms can by itself not be a reason to assume the existence of separate sects, let alone to give them fancy names like "Isarlaism". --GdB 18:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication[edit]

This article is a word for word copy of the ===Religion=== section of Samaritan. I was about to replace it with a redirect to Samaritan#Religion, but thought I'd see if there were any objections first. --Storkk (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No immediate objection has been raised. Since this is a word-for-word copy, I would think this is hardly controversial... If I'm wrong, it can easily be undone. I'll perform the redirect. --Storkk (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced[edit]

The section below is unsourced and appears to contain personal opinion, and was moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please do not restore without finding independent, reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them, and ensuring that this content has appropriate WP:WEIGHT in the article overall.

Beliefs

The principle beliefs of Samaritanism are as follows:

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


hi. I do a lot of Samaritan related edits on Wiktionary and wikisource, and I noticed this and added sources to this on the law (sorry for bad English if any) 17:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)יבריב (talk)
You posted four sources
Sources 1, 2, and 4 there are not acceptable in WP. The third one is meh but marginally OK. But it does not support the content. Content needs to only summarize reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: So basically there's a fine source that was just completely disregarded because of what it was grouped with? Why not just remove the bad citations instead of the entire info piece? יבריב (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I wrote. the one good source does not support the content. Please stop adding content to Wikipedia about what you believe and throwing some source behind it, and start summarizing what reliable sources say. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced redux[edit]

Each section below is unsourced or unreliably sourced in whole or almost whole. Moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN, Do not restore without finding reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them. This content also has essay-like, WP:EDITORIALIZING content like "Interestingly... "

History

Samaritanism holds that the summit of Mount Gerizim is the true location of God's Holy Place, as opposed to the Foundation Stone on the Temple Mount as Judaism teaches. As such, Samaritans trace their history as a separate entity from the Jews back to the time of Moses, where they believe Joshua laid the foundation for their temple. Samaritan historiography traces the schism itself to the High Priest Eli abandoning Moses' Tabernacle in favor of Mount Gerizim following Joshua's death.

(left some)

Further, the Samaritan Chronicle Adler, or New Chronicle, believed to have been composed in the 18th century using earlier chronicles as sources states:

And the Children of Israel in his days divided into three groups. One did according to the abominations of the Gentiles and served other gods; another followed Eli the son of Yafni, although many of them turned away from him after he had revealed his intentions; and a third remained with the High Priest Uzzi ben Bukki, the chosen place.

Samaritanism emerged as an independent ethnic culture following its survival of the Assyrian captivity in the 8th century BC. From here, Jewish sources attest their own narrative of the origins of the Samaritans. From here there are conflicting proposals, including the Samaritans being the people of Kutha described in the Talmud.

Conflict between the Samaritans and the Jews were numerous between the end of the Assyrian diaspora and to the Bar Kokhba revolt. The Tanakh describes multiple instigations from the Samaritan population against the Jews and disparages them, Jesus' Parable of the Good Samaritan also gives evidence of conflict. The destruction of Mount Gerizim's Samaritan temple is attributed to the High Priest John Hyrcanus.

Following the failed revolts, Mount Gerizim was rededicated with a new temple, which was ultimately again destroyed during the Samaritan Revolts. Persecution of Samaritans was common in the following centuries.


Beliefs

The principle beliefs of Samaritanism are as follows:[1]

Religious texts

Samaritan law is not the same as Halakha (Rabbinic Jewish law). The Samaritans have several groups of religious texts, which correspond to Jewish Halakha. A few examples of such texts are:

Samaritan High Priest Yaakov ben Aharon and the Abisha Scroll, 1905


Festivals and Observances

The Samaritans have retained an offshoot of the Ancient Hebrew script, a High Priesthood, the slaughtering and eating of lambs on Passover eve, and the celebration of the first month's beginning around springtime as the New Year. Yom Teru'ah (the Biblical name for "Rosh Hashanah"), at the beginning of Tishrei, is not considered a New Year as it is in Rabbinic Judaism. The Samaritan Pentateuch differs from the Jewish Masoretic Text as well. Some differences are doctrinal: for example, the Samaritan Torah explicitly states that Mount Gerizim is "the place that God has chosen" to establish His name, as opposed to the Jewish Torah that refers to "the place that God chooses". Other differences are minor and seem more or less accidental.

Passover is particularly important in the Samaritan community, climaxing with sacrificing up to 40 sheep. The Counting of the Omer remains largely unchanged, however the week before Shavuot is a unique festival celebrating the continued commitment Samaratinism has maintained since the time of Moses. Shavuot is characterized by nearly day-long services of continuous prayer, especially over the stones on Gerizim tradition attributes to Joshua. During Sukkot, the sukkah is built inside houses as opposed to traditional outdoor settings. The restrictions of Yom Kippur are more universal in Samaritanism, with even breastfeeding and the feeding of children being disallowed, however interestingly the separation of gender during services is never enforced.

References

  1. ^
  2. ^ James VanderKam, Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity, A&C Black, 2nd ed. 2005 p.95.
  3. ^ Timothy Michael Law, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible, Oxford University Press, USA, 2013 p.24.
  4. ^ Isac Leo Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies,. Mohr Siebeck 2004 pp.64ff.
  5. ^ Samaritan Documents, Relating To Their History, Religion and Life, translated and edited by John Bowman, Pittsburgh Original Texts & Translations Series Number 2, 1977.

-- Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: These sections are largely copy/pasted from the Samaritans page, all of the sources used on that page are copied over. If you are suggesting it is improperly/unqualified sourcing, I suggest you also blank the sections on the original page as well - as I have mentioned, it is copy/pasted and exactly the same. So, go ahead.
Regardless, I have now added what should be more-than enough citations for the information stated. יבריב (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: I've used the talk page, friend. Return the favor instead of just reverting without even responding. I have the sources. My patience is running dangerously thin here. יבריב (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are editing warring, restoring unsourced content, and violating COPYVIO. You are wantonly violating content and behavior policies. yes you are writing nice notes here while you do that. Your edits simply violate our content policies and you are not dealing with that. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New article on Samaritan passover[edit]

Knowledgeable editors might want to help expand the new stub Passover (Samaritan holiday). It's been removed out of the Passover article.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glaring omissions[edit]

Are there still Samaritans today? If so, approximately how many are there, and in which countries do they live? How could this article exist without including those basic facts? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is bout the religion not the people, but you could have deduced from present-tense verbs that there are still some around today. AnonMoos (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories